23:14 GMT +323 March 2017
    The new MV-22 Ospreys are seen at Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Ginowan, Okinawa.

    US Marine Corp Armored Vehicles Too Heavy For Osprey Rotorcraft

    © AP Photo/ Eric Talmadge
    Military & Intelligence
    Get short URL

    Vehicle protection requirements implemented by the US Marine Corps limit the service’s ability to deliver offensive and defensive firepower into combat zones.

    The MV-22 "has been relegated to raids rather than service as a critical connector for the sustained amphibious operations envisioned" in operational maneuvers from the sea (OMFTS), according to a defense think tank report.

    A key part of the Marines’ promise to project power from the sea to the shore lies in their ability to transfer heavy military gear via the MV-22 Osprey. But the rotorcraft can only carry lightweight internally-transportable vehicles (ITVs). Further, the Marines’ next version of amphibious vehicles is heavier than the machines they are replacing, since they prioritize armor over portability, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

    To make the most out of the Osprey’s mobility, the USMC "must continue to acquire vehicles and fire support systems small enough to fit aboard the Osprey," the study notes.

    ​The US has "lagged behind" other nations in developing active protection systems (APS) the report found. APS use "kinetic interceptors" to kill incoming rounds before hitting a vehicle. The APS is suggested to be an appropriate "substitute" for cumbersome armor, decreasing overall weight, without skimping on survivability.

    Advancing development of light-armored vehicles and renovating current camouflage, concealment, and decoy technologies also offer potential solutions.

    ITVs are no longer in production, after failing to gain traction among Marines, though it does have about 411 of the land vehicles, the report notes.


    V-22 Osprey’s Vertical Takeoff With 3D-Printed Parts Nails Flight Test
    Pentagon Awards $267Mln Contract to Support MV-22 Osprey
    Seoul Reportedly Plans to Buy US' Osprey V-22 Aircraft
    Bell, Boeing Win $544Mln Contract to Build Osprey Combat Aircraft for Japan
    US Set to Deploy CV-22 Osprey Aircraft at Yokota Air Base in Western Tokyo
    US Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, United States
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik
    • Сomment

    All comments

    • avatar
      Thank heavens. Maybe they will not do as much damage as I feared.
    • basho
      "must continue to acquire vehicles and fire support systems small enough to fit aboard the Osprey,"

      one might think this would be self-evident.
      but then maybe not.
      the left hand doesn't seem to know what the right is doing. lol
    • support
      Re-commission the M551 Sheridan tanks if any are still in existence, change out the turret to pack twin 30 mm GAU's and Bob's yer uncle. Who needs armour anyway? Marines are there to fight just like Black Sea Marines.

      It should also be noted that when deployed under Col. Patton's leadership in Viet Nam, though more active from a sorties standpoint than the M48's and M-60's, M551's sustained fewer combat losses owing principally to heightened maneuverability in relative terms.

      Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to the FMF ! Sooner or later it will occur to someone in NAVSEA or MECDEC that it might be useful to design the cargo around the capabilities of the transport mechanism. I would not recommend holding one's breath in anticipation however.

      Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to Russian Forces as well. I know those happen a bit later than ours. Thanks for doing the job in Syria we Yanks were constrained by US politics from doing.
    • avatar
      jasin reply tobasho(Show commentHide comment)
      basho, The command spends too much time at officers clubs and golf courses, and not enough time on their business. It's a very simple task to determine what will be transported and in what.
    Show new comments (0)